Cable group turns net neutrality around over ISP access fees

Here's an issue that will probably keep the telecom lawyers growling at each other for just a decade or so. The American Cable Association has asked the Federal Communications Commission to stop Internet video content providers from charging ISPs wholesale access fees to their sites "at discriminatory rates, terms and conditions." The ACA filed their request as feedback in the agency's proceeding on its National Broadband Plan. The trade group represents about 900 small and medium sized cable/ISP operators, many serving rural areas.

"Media giants are in the early stages of becoming Internet gatekeepers by requiring broadband providers to pay for their Web-based content and services and include them as part of basic Internet access for all subscribers," an ACA press release on the issue warns. "These content providers are also preventing subscribers who are interested in the content from independently accessing it on broadband networks of providers that have refused to pay."

We don't force anybody

Although the above quote uses the plural, the ACA filing cites only one media giant that it says has actually adopted this practice: the Disney-owned sports site ESPN360.com. But indeed, when Ars went to the site, a pop-up announcement cheerfully told us that "your internet service provider offers ESPN360.com" and that it is "powered by AT&T," one of almost 60 ISPs that feature the online live sports network.

Ars contacted ESPN for a comment on the cable protest, and we got one right quick. "It's typical ACA is making unsubstantiated claims, and this is another attempt to convince the government to give it valuable programming for free," a spokesperson for the company told us. "We don't force distributors—small or large—to carry any of our products. ESPN360.com is a business that would simply not exist but for this economic model, and it offers over 3,500 live events which would mostly not otherwise be seen."

OK, so this is not going to be one of those nice, collegial debates, but let's get the gist of ACA's argument on the table. Obviously, the cable industry is no stranger to paying programmers for content. That's how they get the lion's share of their fare. But rural cable operators complain that they often have to pay higher prices for content than the larger distributors, driving up monthly fees for rural cable consumers.

That's why ACA is particularly sensitive to this emerging phenomenon. "For broadband operators, these sorts of access fees limit their ability to offer a low-cost broadband package to consumers who solely want email and other limited services," the filing charges. "Instead, these Internet providers are forced to put out a bloated and more expensive Internet package that includes high-priced content that the customer is not interested in receiving."

When we asked ACA's Ted Hearn whether he saw this looming anywhere else on the horizon, he pointed us towards Hulu thinking about going the user subscription route. But it's one thing to charge users an access fee, another to charge the ISP, potentially passing the cost on to all the ISPs subscribers whether they're interested in the content or not.

Gut issues

It's interesting to see the tables turned here, though—ISPs charging programmers with violating the spirit of net neutrality, rather than the other way around. "Immediate attention should be given to this matter by the FCC and others that support open networks, like Free Press, to prevent Web-content providers from hijacking the Internet," declared ACA's Matthew Polka in a press release.

So we asked Free Press what they thought about this issue, and they were pretty fast on the draw too. The outfit's policy director Ben Scott shot back an e-mail telling us that his "gut reaction" to ESPN360 was that "it's a terrible business model that defeats the whole idea of maximizing exposure on the Internet."

"E-commerce is built on an online marketplace where companies are free to charge for their services, and consumers are free to buy them," Scott added. "The situation changes when companies begin walling off content and selling network operators the right to distribute it."

So, should the FCC put the brakes on this business model? Given how tough it's been for some online video services to stay financially afloat, it seems a little early to bring big government guns into the picture. On the other hand, what's going to happen to ISP prices if a small army of content providers all start demanding wholesale access fees? Looks like we're in for yet another round of that exciting and never-ending game series titled Who Is Going to Pay for the Internet (and how)?

45 Reader Comments

I have to agree with Free Press here. I already don't like the way cable TV is handled, paying for packages of channels, most of which I do not watch. If internet access goes down this road, we will stem innovation on the net and end up paying more for our access, which will then be limited.

I can see the advertisements now... "ACCESS TO UP TO 100 HIGH QUALITY WEBSITES FOR ONLY $299.99 A MONTH!, Normal internet access included at an additional charge".

I'm confused why an ISP would even pay this fee. There's not enough real competition in broadband to worry ISPs that customers are going to jump ship, and if they all just tell Disney to piss off then it's Disney/ESPN360's problem, not the ISP's.

The content providers make the argument like this is analogous to charging cable companies for access to their cable channels. This is why it really isn't.

The key difference is there are a small number of cable channels. Small is of course a relative term, but there the number of cable channels is measured in hundreds. If this type of thing takes off, the number of websites is not limited in the same way that cable channels are. The article mentions "a small army of content providers", what I fear is a "not so small army of content providers". It is dramatically easier to put up and run a website than is it to run a television channel.

Originally posted by kualtek:I have to agree with Free Press here. I already don't like the way cable TV is handled, paying for packages of channels, most of which I do not watch. If internet access goes down this road, we will stem innovation on the net and end up paying more for our access, which will then be limited.

I agree and see it as far worse.

We at least have a finite amount of TV channels. The Internet is practically infinite.

I believe that Net Neutrality is a good principal. This means that I view an ISP similarly to how I view the phone company, the electric company etc. providing an essential infrastructure service.

The phone company is a better comparison for this case. It is not reasonable for a company 'A' connected to the phone network to charge the individual phone companies in order for their customers to be able to call this company 'A'.

Allowing this fragments the infrastructure and is counter to the services which the government desires to be provided in a consistent way to all citizens.

Therefore, in the same way that an ISP should not be able to charge a content provider for access to its customers, a content provider should not be able to charge an ISP for access to its content. Charging individuals is a different story and of course should be allowed.

Have each ISP put it to a vote with their customers: "Do you want to pay an extra $XX per month to view ESPN360.com?"

To all those who vote "Yes", refactor it & loop: Divide the amount Disney charges the ISPN by the number of those who said "Yes" and ask the question to them once more. Only this time, the cost is higher, of course.

Continue until the delta $ is < $1/month. Those who want to pay for it, pay for it. Those who don't, don't.

THEN see how many really want to fork out the extra do-re-mi for arrogant, self-absorbed providers like Disney....

Yeah, this is just slimy bullshit from the usual crowd of greedy scumbags. What in hell supports the thinking that ISPs must pay a charge to access a site, whereby all that ISPs users have to pay for a service they may not consume? Pure greed.

How about this model ( expanding on mlippert's post above ).

You buy access to the network from your ISP, much like a utility. Now, the ISP makes money for providing a service. Problem one solved.

You buy access to "exclusive" content IF and ONLY IF you choose too. Much like pay-porn, etc. Disney gets paid for providing a service. Problem 2 solved.

The internet is now paid for.

Now if we could just keep Congress from being funded by Disney, etc., we'd see Disney being smacked down and made to play fairly.

Wha..? Is this really happening? If I have an account with ESPN360, I might not be able to access it depending on which ISP I am connected through? I've never heard of such a thing. Doesn't make sense from any way I look at it.

There can be a problem here only because of lack of competition in the ISP market.

ESPN360 says to ISP "A", "pay for all your subscribers to have access to our site, or none of them will". If A gets enough complaints about lack of access, it raises rates to all customers to pay ESPN360.

Then - in the worst-case scenario - another big site does the same thing, then another and so on, and soon customers are forced to pay higher rates because of services many of them don't want.

Well, if people who want plain-old-internet without forced subscriptions to sites could chooose an ISP that would offer that, then there would be no problem. The only reason ESPN360 or any other site could even try to get away with this is that most internet users have only one or two providers to choose from, and their offerings have only trivial differnces in terms.

The answer is making the "last mile" a public utility, and letting ISPs compete to provide service. Then the likes of ESPN360 wouldn't even try to get away with this sort of scam, and similarly ISPs couldn't impose price-gouging traffic limits and stay in business, etc..

I get ESPN360, and I really like it, but it pisses me off that it's sold in a similar way to a cable channel. If I changed internet providers, I might stop getting it. My father would like to get it, but he'd have to change internet providers.

It's especially annoying since a lot of college football/basketball stuff on ESPN 360 is also on ESPN Gameplan/ESPN Full Court, services which you subscribe to individually (though your cable provider still has to offer it). So if a subscription based system where not every customer had to be paying for it worked for that, why not for 360? This model is awful from a consumer's point of view.

swhx7 beat me to the comment punch. This wouldn't be a problem if data connections to the premises were a "dumb pipe" utility. ISP UltraLux could offer expensive service that included access to all sorts of "walled garden" content and ISP Volksrohr could offer cheap service that didn't include any of that access. The walled garden content owners could then decide whether they wanted to offer paid access to individual Volksrohr customers, or tell them to switch to UltraLux if they want in.

Personally I think we'd see Volksrohr do quite well, and UltraLux and the walled garden owners do poorly until they changed their business model. But the only way to be sure is to offer the choice and see what happens. In the absence of choice, as we have in the US today, what you get is an artificial ecosystem such as the cable TV industry that depends on abusing customers from multiple directions to make a profit. Here's to hoping we don't see the 'net become just another example of that.

Originally posted by fxds:In the absence of choice, as we have in the US today, what you get is an artificial ecosystem such as the cable TV industry that depends on abusing customers from multiple directions to make a profit.

Imagine if Comcast bought AOL and AT&T bought CompuServe during their respective heydays, and together the two giants created a national "walled garden" duopoly, with limited interoperability between the two providers and no access to open services like email and the then-nascent Web.

Originally posted by Wind197:Wow... so we have ISPs threatening to drop websites unless they pay up and at the same time have websites threatening to drop ISPs unless THEY pay up.

I think my head just exploded...

This is utter nonsense. I actually had to read it a couple times to make sure I understood it. If they had any confidence in the value of the content, they would just run on a user-level subscription model. The Disney guy's quote made my blood pressure go up a few points.

It's ESPN and Verizon's fault (Verizon is probably ESPN360's biggest "customer"), and it's absolutely ridiculous. I have no idea how much of my FIOS bill goes to ESPN, but whatever it is, it's too much. I wouldn't mind seeing this kind of deal illegalized, because it's just getting uninterested internet users to pay for content they don't want. ESPN360 can go to hell for all I care, and Verizon should sack someone for taking that deal. The only reason I can imagine they did it is would be if someone got a kickback. It's a waste of money and completely destructive to the business model of the internet.I understand ESPN 360 - they're just con men looking for suckers to pay them other people's money - ESPN's business model has always been to demand subsidization from uninterested people; That's how Cable works, but to some extent, there have been some cost savings in controlling the channel offerings that way, and a small pay-off in variety, when users discover a channel they didn't know they had. The internet doesn't have those problems, so it's just rent-seeking hogwash.I have no idea what Verizon's stake in this tomfoolery is, though. I periodically call them to complain and ask for a discount because I don't want ESPN360. They say it's "Free" but it doesn't take a mathematician to know that's because I already paid for it. Nothing is free. Or did the CEO sell one of his mansions to pay it out of his checking account?

Aargh. This pisses me off. Personally, I'd pay *more*, given the choice, to be using an ISP that didn't pander to the likes of ESPN. I'd just as soon see ESPN vanish tomorrow, and the whole broadcast sports industry with it. And yet, if all of the very small number of local broadband ISP's sign up for this nonsense, they'll be getting my money anyway.

Originally posted by Milio:I'm confused why an ISP would even pay this fee. There's not enough real competition in broadband to worry ISPs that customers are going to jump ship, and if they all just tell Disney to piss off then it's Disney/ESPN360's problem, not the ISP's.

As someone who represents the American Cable Association, the trade group of small and medium-sized cable and broadband operators that raised this issue with the FCC on Monday, let me explain. If a web-based content or service provider, such as Disney's ESPN has market power over the network operator, then they can force the broadband provider into accepting this sort of anti-consumer deal.

With regard to ESPN360.com, Disney's ESPN tells broadband providers that unless they carry ESPN360, then Disney won't grant them the rights to provide the ESPN cable networks to their video subscribers. Disney says that operators are not forced to carry ESPN360, but they are certainly coerced because there's no real substitute for ESPN which has exclusive rights to quite a few games of the major sports leagues. Smaller operators who compete with satellite are particularly vulnerable to these threats.

Members of the ACA are speaking up because they don't want to be coerced into paying for unpopular web-based content and services and then having to pass those costs along to their customers in the same way that they are forced to do so for their video customers. ACA members also believe that their customers should have access to all content available on the web, and their subscribers should not lose the option of paying for such content on their own.

ACA is encouraging the Obama Administration, Congress, the FCC, and other public interest groups that are interested in net neutrality to take notice now before these high-cost ‘closed Internet’ business models are replicated and damage is done to the prospect of universal and affordable broadband access.

Originally posted by bizarrojack:I wouldn't mind seeing this kind of deal illegalized, because it's just getting uninterested internet users to pay for content they don't want. ESPN360 can go to hell for all I care, and Verizon should sack someone for taking that deal. The only reason I can imagine they did it is would be if someone got a kickback. It's a waste of money and completely destructive to the business model of the internet.

For more information about the American Cable Association's recommendations to the Federal Communications Commission on how to address this issue, please visit: http://americancable.org/node/1357

There are, of course, various websites, such as those of scientific journals, or that sell music and movies, that provide content for a fee.

If such sites want to have a business model such that they sell their content to the ISP, then that isn't really about net neutrality. Services like that have, in fact, been around for a while. For example, there used to be one news service, ClariNet, which sent news to the customers of paying ISPs through the use of special USENET newsgroups.

For years ESPN has tried to make their website a for-pay site and failed miserably. Since users themselves won't pay for it, ESPN is trying to end round everyone and force ISPs to pay for it, which means we all pay for it whether or not we want it.

FYI, for those of you who have access, this is what it says if you don't:

How to Get Access to ESPN360.com

ESPN360.com is available at no charge to fans who receive their high-speed internet connection from an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider. ESPN360.com is also available to fans that access the internet from U.S. college campuses and U.S. military bases.

Your current computer network falls outside of these categories. Here’s how you can get access to ESPN360.com.

1. Switch to an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider or to contact your internet service provider and request ESPN360.com. Click here to enter your ZIP code and find out which providers in your area carry offer ESPN360.com

2. If you already get ESPN360.com at home and activated remote access, sign in using the myESPN link in the upper right hand corner. In order to activate remote access, you must sign in through your ESPN360.com affiliate Internet Service Provider.

3. For Verizon Customers Only:Sign-in using remote access if you already get ESPN360.com

With regard to ESPN360.com, Disney's ESPN tells broadband providers that unless they carry ESPN360, then Disney won't grant them the rights to provide the ESPN cable networks to their video subscribers. Disney says that operators are not forced to carry ESPN360, but they are certainly coerced because there's no real substitute for ESPN which has exclusive rights to quite a few games of the major sports leagues. Smaller operators who compete with satellite are particularly vulnerable to these threats.

I'm a sports nut, but if there was a cable company that dropped ESPN and their fees, I'd jump ship to that ISP in a heartbeat. Food for thought for Cable/ISP companies looking for some revenue.

Originally posted by Trout Mask Replica:How about this model ( expanding on mlippert's post above ).

You buy access to the network from your ISP, much like a utility. Now, the ISP makes money for providing a service. Problem one solved.

You buy access to "exclusive" content IF and ONLY IF you choose too. Much like pay-porn, etc. Disney gets paid for providing a service. Problem 2 solved.

The internet is now paid for.

That's how things should work. You buy a dumb pipe, and then ONLY pay extra for, you know, exclusive stuff you want. Like pay porn, subscription sites, and now ESPN. This way sports fans get what they want, and non-sports fans don't need to pay for what they don't want.

I mean, isn't that exactly how we handle sites with subscriptions for "exclusive" content - like pay porn - right now? It works for them right? So why shouldn't this work for ESPN? What's so special about these tards that people who aren't interested in their shit should pay for their stuff too?

quote:

Originally posted by Banzai51:For years ESPN has tried to make their website a for-pay site and failed miserably. Since users themselves won't pay for it, ESPN is trying to end round everyone and force ISPs to pay for it, which means we all pay for it whether or not we want it.

Aha! So apparently ESPN has tried going the pay route, but failed miserably? Sounds like there's not much demand for their crap then. So how are they in a position to cause this:

quote:

Originally posted by Rossataca:With regard to ESPN360.com, Disney's ESPN tells broadband providers that unless they carry ESPN360, then Disney won't grant them the rights to provide the ESPN cable networks to their video subscribers. Disney says that operators are not forced to carry ESPN360, but they are certainly coerced because there's no real substitute for ESPN which has exclusive rights to quite a few games of the major sports leagues. Smaller operators who compete with satellite are particularly vulnerable to these threats.

I'm not quite understanding the situation here. How does some loser not-making-enough-profit-to-stay-afloat site be in a position to strongarm network operators?

I was under the impression that espn360 was more about caching than about surcharges. A live streaming broadcast to the entire internet at the quality seen on espn360 would seem on its face be impossible without some kind of caching, and I assume that part of the deal is logistical and not just financial.

If this is true though, how was General Electric able to broadcast the Olympics to United States internet users in an ISP-agnostic manner? It looks more like they are both just brute-forcing it and relying on subsidies to make it feasible, in Disney's case by charging the ISP and in GE's likely from Microsoft for promoting Silverlight.

Just because we have a HORRIBLE, albeit well established, business model for cable doesn't me it should get exported to the inernet. Quite the opposite, I would hope the internet would for cable to change it's bussiness model.

Customers should pay a la carte for EVERYTHING. I'm sick of this bundling garbage, I'm sick of being forced to purchased advertising subsidized content. I want to pay my cable company FLAT rate for my connection, I then want to pay A LA CARTE for each channel I ask them to pipe to my house, I then want to choose if I want to pay a premium to get that content advertising free, or a discount to get it advertising subsidized.

Same things for internet. I should be paying my ISP for ACCESS, NOT for content. If I want to pay for content, I'll pay for it directly to the content provider.

Originally posted by Rossataca:With regard to ESPN360.com, Disney's ESPN tells broadband providers that unless they carry ESPN360, then Disney won't grant them the rights to provide the ESPN cable networks to their video subscribers. Disney says that operators are not forced to carry ESPN360, but they are certainly coerced because there's no real substitute for ESPN which has exclusive rights to quite a few games of the major sports leagues. Smaller operators who compete with satellite are particularly vulnerable to these threats.

quote:

Originally posted by Aensland:I'm not quite understanding the situation here. How does some loser not-making-enough-profit-to-stay-afloat site be in a position to strongarm network operators?

Disney's ESPN cable channels are not "some loser not-making-enough-profit-to-stay-afloat" enterprise. Because ESPN and ESPN2 has exclusive rights to so many sporting events of various leagues, ESPN the company can coerce cable operators into paying exorbitant fees for their channels, and also force the channels to be included on the cable operator's most basic programming tiers. This forces Grandma, who may have no interest in sports, to pay a fee for the channel, even though all she ever watches is the Lifetime Network. Many members of the American Cable Association would love to make ESPN available on a sports tier, but ESPN doesn't give cable operators this as a real option.

What's happening now is that the sports and media conglomerate is not only coercing cable operators into carrying their cable programming, but also coercing them to carry and pay for ESPN360.com as another prerequisite to obtaining the rights to carry the ESPN cable networks.

While the poster child of this issue has become ESPN360, it's not far fetched to imagine that a very popular site or service like Google would sometime in the future demand fees or preferential treatment from broadband providers in exchange for the right of cable customers to access their service. It may seem infeasible today, but one or two quarters of decreasing revenues, and the web giant may be looking for ways to turn that around. What would a broadband provider do, if asked to pay an initially small access fee to enable their customers to access the site. Do you think that a broadband provider could say no and tell their customers that Google is now not available? I imagine that most broadband providers would not like this development, and sign up with another broadband provider. Maybe you wouldn't in protest, but a lot of people would. This would be the beginning of the end of the open Internet.

A cable model forced onto the Internet by media and Internet giants is a scary future that the Obama Administration, Congress, and the FCC needs to start thinking about now.

Rossataca, why is this about TV? Or cable? When it's about internet access. FYI I don't live in USA, which explains why I don't see everything that you're seeing about the cablecos.

Can't a subscriber just pay for a net access package WITHOUT getting the tv stuff? This doesn't solve the problem of cable channel bundling, of course, but I thought we were only talking about net access here.

Edit: This is why imo bundling is crap, and I'm glad that the local tv subscription service providers in this corner of the world (satellite) are separate from our net providers. The satellite guys do have a net access package btw, but afaik it's so unpopular it might as well not exist.

While the poster child of this issue has become ESPN360, it's not far fetched to imagine that a very popular site or service like Google would sometime in the future demand fees or preferential treatment from broadband providers in exchange for the right of cable customers to access their service. It may seem infeasible today, but one or two quarters of decreasing revenues, and the web giant may be looking for ways to turn that around. What would a broadband provider do, if asked to pay an initially small access fee to enable their customers to access the site. Do you think that a broadband provider could say no and tell their customers that Google is now not available? I imagine that most broadband providers would not like this development, and sign up with another broadband provider. Maybe you wouldn't in protest, but a lot of people would. This would be the beginning of the end of the open Internet.

So I get your point, but get a different example. Google has a strong image as a company that stands up for the users and promotes an open internet in opposition to...well, you guys in the cable industry, really.

You work for the cable companies. You need to compare yourselves to someone even less likable, which means that your example villain should always be either an MPAA member company or AT&T. People like to see the evil monopolistic companies fight each other.

This is a misnomer of net neutrality. Net neutrality center around the pipes charging for content, not the nodes. The net is still neutral to that data that is going over it, espn360 is just filter who can use their website.

quote:

Instead, these Internet providers are forced to put out a bloated and more expensive Internet package that includes high-priced content that the customer is not interested in receiving.

Then don't put out the content packages that your customers don't want? The worse that espn360 can do is block their content that none of your users want.

Originally posted by Aensland:Rossataca, why is this about TV? Or cable? When it's about internet access. FYI I don't live in USA, which explains why I don't see everything that you're seeing about the cablecos.

It's Disney leveraging their power in one market to force things in another. Many cable TV providers are also providing ISP services. Disney/ESPN threatens to withhold ESPN cable channels from the cable company for their TV offerings (which are very popular and therefore somewhat "required' to compete effectively) if the cableco does not also subscribe to the ESPN360 service for their ISP offerings.

Weewolf, you don't understand -- ESPN is using *extortion* to force cable (TV + internet) providers to "pay to play" with ESPN360 or they won't be allowed to carry the ESPN television feeds. That forces the provider to jack up the rates of their users so that they all have to pay to subsidize ESPN360 for the few who want to watch it.

It's effectively a private tax on internet end-users levied by a corporation -- and Congress should step in and say, "only governments are allowed to levy taxes" and slap them upside the head. Or state that this is extortion and take them to criminal court and then slap them in jail.

The cable operators should team up with the DSL ISPs and all of them should march into ESPN/Disney's offices and say, en mass, "Take your product and SHOVE IT." When their revenues plummet and they still have to pay big bucks for their exclusive coverage of events, they'll change their tune -- or face bankruptcy court with GM & Chrysler.

Originally posted by Brainstorms:Weewolf, you don't understand -- ESPN is using *extortion* to force cable (TV + internet) providers to "pay to play" with ESPN360 or they won't be allowed to carry the ESPN television feeds. That forces the provider to jack up the rates of their users so that they all have to pay to subsidize ESPN360 for the few who want to watch it.

It's effectively a private tax on internet end-users levied by a corporation -- and Congress should step in and say, "only governments are allowed to levy taxes" and slap them upside the head. Or state that this is extortion and take them to criminal court and then slap them in jail.

The cable operators should team up with the DSL ISPs and all of them should march into ESPN/Disney's offices and say, en mass, "Take your product and SHOVE IT." When their revenues plummet and they still have to pay big bucks for their exclusive coverage of events, they'll change their tune -- or face bankruptcy court with GM & Chrysler.

Extortion? They can choose not to carry the ESPN channels. If their customers are not happy about that then they can pick up the ESPN package and pass on the extra fees.

That's the problem -- I do NOT want to have "extra fees" passed on to ME because someone else wants to watch sports on their computer screen.

Do you want to pay for other people on your ISP to watch porn? It can come to that, too.

It is extortion -- because ESPN knows that a given cable TV/internet company will hear no end of complaints if they unilaterally decide to "drop" ESPN because they refuse to pay for ESPN360.com, too. Probably what would happen is that the consumers' complaints will go to their local utilities commissions, who would force the provider to restore their treasured station.

And the key point is that any fees that the media sources charge the providers will be multiplied and added to the subscriber's monthly bills. I.e., YOU have to pay whether you want to use the service or not. It's a tax, levied by extortion, because the providers are not in an (easy) position to tell EPSN to go chase themselves.

What is needed is a "critical mass" of providers to, AS A GROUP, inform ESPN/Disney/every media source out there that if they do not withdraw their "pay to play" demands, that they will, AS A GROUP, cancel their contracts to purchase ESPN's feeds (TV and internet).

With a large enough group threatening to do so (threatening so that ESPN still plays on the screens of the subscribers while this war is being fought), ESPN's bean counters will be able to subtract that large amount of revenue from the amount they're paying the sports teams for exclusive coverage and get a BIG RED NUMBER.

That big red number is LEVERAGE for the providers and the consumers. One ISP here or one cable provider there standing up to EPSN will simply get giggles in the board rooms.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.